Trachtenberg_Archaeology, Merriment, and Murder- The First Cortile of the Palazzo Vecchio and Its Transformations in the Late Florentine Republic

8/7/2019 Trachtenberg_Archaeology, Merriment, and Murder- The First Cortile of the Palazzo Vecchio and Its Transformations i

1/46

Archaeology, Merriment, and Murder: The First Cortile of the Palazzo Vecchio and ItsTransformations in the Late Florentine RepublicAuthor(s): Marvin TrachtenbergSource: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 71, No. 4 (Dec., 1989), pp. 565-609

Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3051270 .

Accessed: 03/04/2011 10:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Art

Bulletin.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3051270?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3051270?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa


2/46

Archaeology, Merriment,andMurder:The FirstCortileof the Palazzo Vecchioand ItsTransformations n the Late FlorentineRepublic

Marvin Trachtenberg

The relationship between trecento and quattrocento architecture is usually seen asa simplistic paragone of stylistic antithesis generally derogatory to the former pe-riod. A reconstruction of the original cortile wing of the Palazzo Vecchio, whichwas remodeled in the Renaissance, permits the deconstruction of this view, at leastwith respect to key aspects of one major building. New archaeological evidence,together with historical data and the analysis of two picaresque literarytexts, yieldsa detailed picture of the complex early project. The builders' remarkably preciseand imaginative planning procedure is rediscovered, along with the exceptionallyhigh functionalism of the original fabric. Life in the palace, real and symbolic, isreviewed, and the changing form of the cortile in the Renaissance is found to havebeen motivated principally not by aesthetics, but by Medicean politics.For Piero MicheliWorks of architecture, if they survive for long, often passthrough several phases before their disappearance. Thebuilding in its primary state will closely reflect the material,social, and aesthetic conditions of its day. As this set ofconditions changes, the edifice generally changes with it.In these secondary phases of a building's life, its interior ischaracteristically adapted to new uses. If conditions alterdrastically, more radical changes occur, affecting the mon-umental appearance of the fabric. The adaptive elasticityof architectural works is enormous, but there are limits.When they are reached, the building is abandoned or de-stroyed, barringconservation laws (which themselves havelimited lives).Historians are understandably attracted most intenselyto the primary phase of a building's career, sometimes tothe extent of encouraging restorers to return the fabric toits original form. But to recapture this privileged state ar-chaeologically and historically, the building must be stud-ied as more than an initial design frozen in time. The pri-mary state cannot be understood without attention to the

secondary phases, which possess an intrinsicinterest of theirown. To come to grips fully with the monument meansunderstanding it as a quasi-living being, changing, reflect-ing, and affecting its fluid human and physical environ-ment. In doing so, historians are often frustrated by thelack of needed information, especially in pre-modern pe-riods. But surprising data often turns up. Archaeologicalevidence is unearthed, documents are found or reinter-preted, and unused historical and literary evidence isbrought to bear. Thereby it is possible for the lost life ofthe building and its times to become architectural biog-raphy. The Palazzo Vecchio in Florence, in particular itscortile, among the most important early examples of theform in Italian architecture, is a case in point.The original, main block of the Palazzo Vecchio domi-nating the Piazza della Signoria was built from 1299 to1313/15 (Figs. 1-3).1 A survivor of nearly seven centuriesof political change, the monument is an aggregate of orig-inal fabric and numerous interventions. Because it becamea primaryicon of the state, whatever regimemay have been

A short version of this paper was given as a talk in 1983 at the Instituteof Fine Arts Symposium in memory of Wolfgang Lotz. The collaborationof Piero Micheli has been indispensable to my archaeological study of thepalace, and its presentation here has benefited enormously from thedraftsmanship of Adrienne Atwell, along with her contribution to theresolution of many of the intricate problems of reconstruction. Ugo Muc-cini, presently in charge of the fabbrica of the palace, has graciously fa-

cilitated my recentexplorations there. My work on this paper has profitedfrom the critical comment of Nicolai Rubinstein, Howard Saalman, SamGruber, JamesAckerman, and Anne-Marie Sankovitch. I am indebted tothe National Endowment for the Humanities, the Guggenheim Founda-tion, and the Villa I Tatti for their support of research.1 On the building history of the palace, see Trachtenberg, 1988, 14ff.


3/46

566 THE ART BULLETIN DECEMBER 1989 VOLUME LXXI NUMBER 4

1 Florence, Palazzo Vecchio, from southwest (photo: author)


4/46

TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE PALAZZO VECCHIO'S FIRST CORTILE 567

ADDITIONS.? ORIGINAL

SALADE' GIGLI

CAPPELLAUDIENZA

0SECONDOIANOI 2 4 8SECONDO PIANO ll1 1 1 Im N2 Palazzo Vecchio, plan, secondo piano, including part of the additions to original palace block (drawing by A. Atwell)

o o ~ ~

S E C TIO N III I. I i

Svmvvv

B~i'?

3 Palazzo Vecchio, north-south cross-section (drawing by A. Atwell, after Micheli-Geri)


5/46


i~iiii~i~i~iii~iii~i:II:?I:?:I?III?? !ii.iii-ii~iii~~!!!i!!i-!!!!!ii!i~iiiiii:ii! !! !_ii:iliii:-::i:-::::.-?:::

@:::In:

_:.:--

4 PalazzoVecchio,Cameradell'Arme, iew to west (photo:Comunedi Firenze)

in place, the exterior of the monument endured the test oftime essentially intact. But the interior early entered its sec-ondary phase in the form of extensive remodelings - twomajorcampaigns in the Renaissance, and a thirdduringtheRisorgimento (when the palace briefly served as capitol ofthe newly established Italian state), and these campaignswere followed by a period of sometimes misguided resto-rations. As the archaeologist works back through this ev-olution, the interior becomes ever more difficult to recon-

struct. Documentation driesup, graphic renderingsbecomeall but nonexistent, and one finds much of the original fab-ric either gone or buried beneath posterior layers. Belowthe battlements and tower, only one original interior sur-vives in its original state, the severe, rib-vaulted Cameradell'Armeon thegroundfloor (Fig.4). The greathalls aboveit spatially reflect their original form, but the original cor-tile and the many rooms gathered around it have been al-most totally obscuredby changes. The cortile area is a crit-ical loss to historians of both architecture and Florentinepolitics. The palace was built during the ascendancy of therepublic to serve the highest councils and representativesof the state. The priors and Gonfaloniere di Giustizia, aschief executives, lived on the cortile, which was also thesetting of the offices of several key bureaucratic officials.Both the regime and the building designed to serve it wereof a complex singularity.The exteriorof the monument wasof an unprecedented scale and unsurpassed novelty; itsforms gave symbolic expression to a specific set of Flor-entine ideas and ambitions. One can only imagine that thecourtyard of the palace was designed with equal attentionto civic needs, in this case primarily the work space andliving quarters of the leading personages of the regime. Ifthe courtyardarea, interiorspaces as well as facades, couldbe accurately reconstructed, it would yield important in-formation about Florentinearchitecturalpractice of the pe-riod and perhaps offer insights into the actual status andfunctioning of the government. It would also open a newperspective on the quattrocento alterations.The Cortile FacadesWhen Michelozzo remodeled the cortile of the PalazzoVecchio after 1454, his aim clearly was to give the com-munal building the new look of his recent Palazzo Medicicourtyard, designed around 1445 (Figs. 47, 48).2 The orig-inal Palazzo Vecchio cortile obviously was different from

2 Vasari implies as much, writing that Michelozzo's new cortile windowswere "simili a quelle che per Cosimo aveva fatto nel cortile del palazzode'Medici"(II, 436). Only the rebuilding of the portico is documented (C.von Fabriczy, "Michelozzo di Bartolomeo," Jahrbuch der preussischenKunstsammlungen(Beiheft), 1904, 99ff; A. Gotti, Storia del Palazzo Vec-chio in Firenze, Florence, 1889, 85), nor is the capomaestro mentioned.However, Vasari's testimony combined with the design details supportsthe cortile attribution to Michelozzo. The cortile work was prompted bythe decrepit state of the portico, whose supports were in a state of near-ruin; the undocumented remodeling of its upper levels probably followedsoon afterwards, the cortile not being mentioned in the extensive workon the palace following 1468 that is documented in some detail. On theremodeling in general, see Lensi, 54f. Concerning the problematic dateand authorship of the Palazzo Medici (whose capomaestro is not men-tioned directly in the documents, but only in later sources), Hyman se-curely established 1446 for the commencement of above-grade construc-tion and advanced good evidence linking Michelozzo with it, whileallowing for the possibility of a Brunelleschian basis for the scheme ofthe edifice (1975, 98ff., and 1977, 127ff.). D.V. and F.W.Kent, however,have subsequently discovered that the initiation of the project goes backto early 1445, when the clearingof the building site was underway ("TwoComments of March 1445 on the Medici Palace," Burlington Magazine,cxxI, 1979, 797f.), at which point the design surely must have been underserious consideration. The Kents note that this discovery puts the found-ing of the palace well before Brunelleschi's death on 16 Apr. 1446, which

would of course lend support to the notion of his involvement in theproject. Nevertheless, until it can be demonstrated otherwise, I believethat we should acceptthe traditionaland, more important, the stylisticallyplausible attribution to Michelozzo. I do not find anything of Brunelles-chi's personal style in the building, but rather the presence of Brunelles-chian features that were becoming part of Renaissance architecture n gen-eral by the 1440s, chiefly through the work of Michelozzo. This wouldinclude not only the detailing of the palace, but, as T6nnesmann in par-ticular has shown, crucial aspects of its scheme (see n. 3). Indeed, evenits proportional lucidity was not altogether dependent on Brunelleschi'sadvances; highly rational planning was part of a Florentine tradition welladvanced by the trecento, a fact (Trachtenberg,1988, 31ff.) that I furtherdemonstrate below (pp. 583ff) in the analysis of the first Palazzo Vecchiocourtyard (where, for example, the 2:1 proportions of the Medici court-yard noted by Hyman [1977, 123] already appear). If one discounts allthe features of the Palazzo Medici that are either generically Florentineor Early Renaissance in character, one is left, to my mind, with a stylethat is demonstrably both non-Brunelleschian and strongly Michelozzian.In any event, though I adhere to the party of Michelozzian authorship ofthe Palazzo Medici in this essay, this issue of connoisseurship does notdirectly impinge on the essential points of my argument, and the samemay be said concerning the remodeling of the Palazzo Vecchio cortile.(The problem of the architect of the Palazzo Medici is given a searchingreconsideration in a forthcoming article by Brenda Preyer.)


6/46


Michelozzo's - but how different? Just what was its re-lationship to the new Renaissancetype? Was it a prototype,or was it irrelevant?In other words, was Michelozzo's sur-gery superficial, or was it radical? Scholarship has beenpredisposed toward the former possibility, which might besupported by way of analogy to the relationship betweenthe exterior facades of the two buildings. The Palazzo Med-ici draws on the scheme of the Palazzo Vecchio, which itsubjects to a series of Renaissance transformations. Theuniform rustication of the early building is developed intograded textures, from rugged blocks to polished ashlar;other elements are translated into the antique idiom, in-cluding the medieval battlements, which become a classicalentablature. In this view, the original Palazzo Vecchiocourtyard would have been subjected to analogous trans-formation, with classical columns replacing rude medievalsupports and round-headed windows taking the place ofGothic framework. Allowing for differences in proportionsand in the distribution of elements, the Palazzo Vecchiocortile would have resembled the contemporary one at theBargello, and both would provide medieval models for theRenaissancetype.3The differentiation of old and new wouldhave been essentially, if not exclusively, stylistic.Any advance beyond the sheer guesswork of this seduc-tive but cautious hypothesis seemed forever blocked by thelack of pre-Renaissanceviews or descriptions of the cortileand by the thick layer of intonaco that covered the evidencein its walls. This limitation was lifted by the restoration ofthe cortile in 1972-73. Nominally the work involved thesubstitution of new intonaco for old, but in the process themasonry of the cortile walls was laid bare and recorded infour detailed, large-scale drawings, painstakingly executedby Architetto Riccardo Geri under the direction of Archi-tetto Piero Micheli (then head of the Division of Fine Artsof the Comune di Firenze). The cortile was afterwards re-plastered (except for rediscovered patches of original dec-orative quattrocento plasterwork4),but the stone-for-stonedrawings provide us with the material needed for a securereconstruction of its original, pre-Michelozzian form.5Each of the Micheli-Geri elevations shows a single sideof the cortile (Figs. 5-8). Where the masonry was stone,every individual element was precisely recorded. Much ofthe masonry, however, is of an irregular,mixed brick-and-stone technique inserted during the post-1300 rebuildings,represented as blank areas in the renderings. Preservedpatches of pre-modern intonaco appear in gray. Few of thepre-Michelozzian details are preserved intact. Much wasdestroyed during the remodeling, and substantial areas re-main hidden beneath old intonaco. Moreover, it was un-derstandably not possible for the restorers to remove the

Renaissancedecoration of the arcade spandrels (or Vasari'sstucco revetment of Michelozzo's piers), and at the top ofthe cortile Michelozzo's broad entablature was left un-touched. Thus, both the uppermost and lowermost detailremains inaccessible. Nevertheless, more than enough wasrevealed between whole elements, fragments, and meretraces of forms to allow a reconstruction of the dispositionof the original cortile walls. In establishing this reconstruc-tion, I will rely on three renderings, each setting togetherall four cortile elevations in conjunction with a cross-sec-tion of the externalpalace wall and interconnecting floors/ceilings (Figs. 9-11). Here, I will refer to the first of thesecomposite elevations, in which all of the preserved pre-Michelozzian features are indicated. Most of them are frag-mentary, and have been completed in broken lines to matchanalogous features found elsewhere on the walls.The initial impression of this rendering is that the oldworking hypothesis about the cortile facades was essen-tially correct, for the most prominent feature to emergefrom beneath the intonaco was a set of walled-up openings,simple Florentine Gothic apertures with double-curvedstone arches(e.g., Fig. 12), which Michelozzo replacedwithrefined Renaissancewindows. Similarly, the distribution offorms was originally uneven (albeit more so than perhapswas expected) and later was tightened up into a highly for-malized order. Closer study of the evidence, however,proves that Michelozzo's remodeling was not only a matterof stylistic updating, and that his intricate structural sur-gery was far more than cosmetic.In interpreting this evidence, my procedure will be firstto strip away all nonoriginal archaeological material in or-der to scrutinize the primary fabric. This fabric will thenserve a step-by-step reconstruction, working from two di-mensions to threeand from static to dynamic analysis. Thatis, I will proceed from the cortile facades (the immediatetopic of discussion) to the spaces behind them, and to ques-tions of circulation and usage of the whole cortile block.This reading hinges on a crucial presumption: that the tre-cento builders of the palace were rational, dedicated, andskilled ratherthan casual, erratic, and incompetent in plan-ning, as is so often imagined by historians wishing to con-trast the Renaissancewith its supposedly immatureand un-tutored precursor. This antithesis will be deconstructed byits simple denial (for no cogent or knowledgeable argumenthas ever been made in support of it), and I will assume thattrecento Florentine builders possessed the same degree ofrational and practical skills as their commercial and intel-lectual peers and their Renaissance architecturalfollowers,an assumption that will be tested by the archaeologicalfacts. I will look for both rational explanations of archae-

3Paul appears to view the Palazzo Vecchio cortile as in the "Bargello"mode in his discussion of its typology and origins (1969, 43ff.). My em-phasis, here as elsewhere in this article, on the medieval background ofthe Renaissance cortile established at the Palazzo Medici is not intendedto exclude the role of certain early quattrocento courtyards in its genesis,in particular those of the Busini and Uzzano-Capponi palaces whose im-portance to this development is correctly emphasized by Tonnesmann,81ff.

SOn this decoration, see n. 22.s I would like to thank Piero Micheli for making these drawingsand othermaterialavailable to me, includingseveral otherrenderingsmade by Arch.Geri under my supervision that were the point of departurefor the ele-vations and cross-sections in this article.


7/46


1L.

... [111 1 11 1 _..

-;. :- 1.;_ -

i-

.....- ~ ~ ,:.. .. . . -- ..- .. .. . . . . . . . - [

5 Palazzo Vecchio, south cortile wall, intonaco removed(after Micheli-Geri)

L '///~'L 8~~\\\\\\~.c

"' ;::-:2: ;:rri:::? ?::-?I?

t b~S~ is?d-"i~P~kL~iEl P~ hi

L~

1 i 111t II IIn,?r_:-?-??-: II 11 IItII1a~?

I~--t~- ~--~~- -- "- ~6 Palazzo Vecchio, east cortile wall, intonaco removed(after Micheli-Geri)

, I'---. "-. .... }777, .

----T7 '.-- -- r7. _i-7-2- ;--. "- 2- -. . . . -

-tI.

~ii~.i ?~iW:i'_il-.

;::l::

7U-.l::

7 Palazzo Vecchio, north cortile wall, intonaco removed(after Micheli-Geri)

!r

1 7T"p.:4-.,::?j--ii/zl

1 1

8 Palazzo Vecchio, west cortile wall, intonaco removed(after Micheli-Geri)


8/46


? =;, ,h

iB- ---, . .. . .J . L

J E

~

SECTION " N S0,1,2 4 ,9 Palazzo Vecchio, combined cortileelevations and cross-section, withpre-Michelozzian features (drawingby A. Atwell)

. ro o oO O] O O O 11 O O O O O O O O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SECTION2 4 610 Palazzo Vecchio, combined cor-tile elevations and cross-section,original features restored (drawingby A. Atwell)

SECTION ,u E S

bII - - I

11 Palazzo Vecchio, combined cor-tile elevations and cross-section,complete restoration, including bal-conies (drawing by A. Atwell)


9/46


i5" -------

t?r:A:~?:-Yy

12 PalazzoVecchio, ramework f an originalcortilewindow(photo:Comunedi Firenze)

ological particularsand archaeological support of rationalinterpretation, and seek to find logic, both conceptual andpractical, in the planning of every aspect of the fabric, withthe idea that virtually nothing in this important, costlybuilding was left to chance. There is a thin line, of course,between legitimate analysis of this kind and the free-wheel-ing rationalization of patternsanddetails all too often foundin the critical literature of architecture. This line can bemaintained in several ways, however: by avoiding readingswith "ifs"and "buts"and building card-houses of serialhy-potheses, by bringing to bear practical and historical fac-tors as controls, by finding solid comparative material, andby refusing anachronistic arguments.The primary new evidence at the palazzo is the set ofarched trecento openings to the cortile, which were foundin greatest profusion and regularity on the south wall (Fig.5). As on the other sides, their remains are seen at threelevels. Three such openings are comparatively well pre-served in both of the lower two zones. In the third zone,remnants of only the lateralaperturesareclearly preserved,but presumably there was an opening in the center corre-spondingto the intermediateopenings of the first two zones,destroyed in the Renaissance remodeling (explaining whyso much "new"masonry was needed around the small rec-

tangular quattrocento window). On this south facade ofthe cortile, evidence of a fourth zone is preservedin a singleopening, whose upper parts, however, are inaccessible be-hind Michelozzo's entablature. The other three sides of thecortile show no further fourth-zone traces, but exhibit re-mains of similar Gothic openings, which vary in number,height, and distribution.The other early features of the cortile walls divide intoseveral groups. A supplementary set of brick-archedopen-ings was inserted into the northeast corner, on the northwall at all three principal levels and also on the adjacenteast wall at the second level. A more disruptive intrusionoccurred in the same area in the form of a set of immensecorbel structures, all later shaved back to the plane of thewall, with the remnantsdistinguishablefrom other featuresin Figures6 and 7. Evidently initially planned for the firstzone, where a single corbel was built, the corbelling wasrealizedin the second level in threepartially andthreerathercompletely preserved forms gathered around the northeastcorner of the cortile, where one of them cuts down throughan original Gothic window, which caused it to be walledup. Finally, there are a number of small, rectangularopen-ings of two types (not to be confused with the minor rec-tangular quattrocento windows). The first type is found ina single example on the north side at the second level, ev-idently a supplementary window. More important is thesecond type, a smallerform (ca. 30 x 60cm), of which four-teen examples are visible in various states of preservationrunning just below the second and third zones, all alignedhorizontally within each story.6It will become evident that most of these featuresare butvarious aspects of a single, original architectural system.Several, however, as already suggested, are extraneous toit, the work of pre-Michelozzian interventions. The smallrectangularwindow in the west corner of the second levelon the north facade was clearly broken into the originalmasonry, and would seem to indicate the partitioning-offof a small interior behind it in the northwest corner prob-ably at a relatively early trecento date, judging from thewindow frame, which resembles those of the Palazzo Vec-chio tower.7 A further indication of repartitioning of theinterior, more extensive in scope, is present in the brick-arched openings in the northeast corner and toward thecenter of the north side of the third level. The most intri-guing of these supplementary forms, however, are the cor-bel structures. Gathered around the northeast corner, theywere evidently designed to sustain some massive featurejutting out over the cortile. The corbels are as much as28cm thick and three meters high on the east side and 25cmby 2.5 meters on the north wall, and they would have orig-inally projected forward as much as 1.5 meters. The only

6 Three additional openings of the type are present, one near the top ofthe west wall, and two in the second level toward the east corner of thesouth wall. The latter run at different heights than the other slots in thiszone on the other sides of the cortile. These three openings relate to twoaspects of the original cortile project (the first explained below, the other

impossible to reconstruct) evidently abandoned during construction.7 A second, larger window above it on the secondo piano would haveserved the same function, but it is evidently part of the quattrocento re-modeling (its shaved-down frame is of indeterminatedate).


10/46


slightly more massive (31 x 270cm) corbels on the exteriorof the palazzo sustain not only the battlements but also (inthickened form) part of the immense tower (Fig. 1). Whatmight the gigantic cortile corbels have been meant for? Afragment of the cornicework exhibits profiles that suggestthe mid-trecento (Fig. 13), a comparative example being theground-story stringcourse at Orsanmichele.8 This datingpoints toward what in any event would seem the most likelyorigin of the mysterious structures: the fortification of thepalace by the duke of Athens in 1342-43.9 In addition tothe massive antiportals erected at both main entrances (Fig.19), he would have built a masonry apparatus to defendthe cortile, in the form of a battlemented, possibly mach-icolated L-shaped balcony - an echauguette - set overmassive corbelling diagonally opposite the main cortile en-trance, functioning in the way of the defensive arrange-ments often found in the gates and baileys of fortifications(Fig. 14).10 The anteportals disrupted the iconographic bal-ance of the monumental exterior of the palace, making ittoo fortress-like, and thus they were dismantled soon afterthe expulsion of the duke of Athens. Unlike them, the cor-tile &chauguette eems to have been retained until Miche-lozzo's time as a precautionary measure against insurrec-tion. The basis for this assertion is the intermediate corbelon the east wall (Fig. 6). Unlike the other corbels, it cutsdown through an original window walled up to support it.Had the 6chauguette been removed prior to Michelozzo'stime, the corbel would in all likelihood have been disman-tled in order to reopen the window. Thus to picture a mas-sive defensive structure looming over the cortile for a cen-tury is perhaps disconcerting to our traditional image ofthe palace, but in fact the echauguette neatly supplementedthe defensive features already in place in the heavily armedbuilding: two levels of battlements in the ballatoio, whichincluded machicolations over the palace entrances; a hugekeep-cum-watchtower; and, analogous to the cortileechauguette in function, a defensive balcony set on thewalls of the Cameradell'Arme. Moreover, the structure, aswill shortly be shown, would have fitted well with anotherfeature of the cortile, which would have provided accessto it.

Proceeding from this analysis, the complete dispositionof the original cortile walls may be restored in a secondcomposite elevation (Fig. 10). Here all nonoriginal featuresare eliminated (i.e., the pre-Michelozzian changes in thefirst composite drawing), and the archaeologically absentfeatures are restored, following the indications of adjacentforms. Thus, on the south side a central opening on thethird level follows the pattern of the lower stories, andanalogously two openings are restored on the north wall.All around the cortile, rows of small slots are completedfollowing the spacing of the preservedexamples. At the top

of the walls, windows are hypothetically reconstructed foran attic. In all cases, restored elements fall in areas de-stroyed and replaced by Michelozzo.The twenty-seven Gothic apertures of the cortile wallstell us that in one respect Michelozzo retained the old cor-tile scheme. Contrary to what has been the general sup-position, the cortile originally had the same number of sto-ries as the quattrocento version: ground-floor portico,primo piano, mezzanino, secondo piano, and sottotetto orattic. Of these five levels, the original existence of two hasbeen put in question - the mezzanino (corresponding tothe upper zone of the Sala de' Dugento in the north sectionof the palace) and the sottotetto - the others being doc-umented or self-evident in the exterior fenestration. Theexistence of the little-known attic, now unused except forstorage and tapestry restoration, is indicated by the recov-ery of the base of a single early opening near the center ofthe south cortile wall. No other secure traces of parallelopenings were found, but most of the original masonry atthis level was destroyed by Michelozzo. The floor of theattic, which now varies in level from wing to wing, wasoriginally generally lower. It appears preserved at more orless its original height in a short tract around the tower,where the trecentesque painted beams sustaining it are vis-ible in the secondo piano (Fig. 15). The ceiling of the attic- that is, the roof of the cortile wings - was raised inlater revisions. Its original level is established by the orig-inal roof-cornice molding on the tower wall and on theinner face of the outer wall of the palazzo (the moldingserving as a weather seal where the roof tiles, set under it,meet the wall). Shaved-down strips of this cornice werefound beneath intonaco. In Figures16 and 17 can be seena tract running from the outer wall down the south face ofthe tower and on around it, establishing the slope of theroof. A similar trace in the cinquecento "kitchen" on theopposite side of the building is illustrated in Figure18. Theheight of the cornice is identical in both cases, and togetherwith other, less secure traces, the evidence indicates thatthe original roof was a lean-to structure running evenlyaround the top of the courtyard." This roof sharply limitsthe height of the opening found at the top of the southcortile wall (to whose intended function I will return). Itdoes allow, however, for a row of small windows (differentin form from the preserved opening) facing the cortile justbeneath the eaves, roughly paralleling the small oculi inMichelozzo's entablature, which serve the same purpose oflighting the attic (Figs. 3, 10). As on the north facade ofthe palace and part of the adjacent west front, such smallwindows would probably have been rectangular.The problem of the mezzanino, like that of the attic,stems from a misinterpretation of Vasari, whose descrip-tion of Michelozzo's new servant quarters "di sopra" -

8 Trachtenberg, 1971, fig. 199.9 On the fortification work by the duke of Athens, see N. Rubinstein,"The Piazza della Signoria in Florence,"FestschriftHerbert Siebenhiiner,Wiirzburg, 1978, 23.10The echauguette typically is straight or wrapped around an exterior

corner (cf. Viollet-le-Duc, v, 114ff). Tuscan examples of the genre arepreserved at the Rocca di Castellina and the Castello di Strozzavolpe (E.Bosi and G. Magi, I castelli del Chianti, Florence, 1977, 84, 104).11Due to the varying widths of the cortile wings, the slope of the roofwould have varied around the sides of the cortile.


11/46


~_:: ' ::~il::::-::?.-:::-P i~:?; ~?:r::~-;;e;:ujd

i ~I

~i:::::?-' ;:::I:4::. i i '

~nf~~::?

13 PalazzoVec-chio, cortile,detail of corbelstructurephoto:ComunediFirenze)

S I Im01 3 6

14 PalazzoVec-chio, cortile,re-constructed xon-ometricview ofechauguette(drawing by A.Atwell)

coming immediately after his description of the secondopiano - has been willfully misread to refer to a new storyinserted somewhere above ground level, i.e., in the upper

---m'r - 5 9 k

4k isi

15 PalazzoVecchio,ceilingof the secondopiano, adjacent otower(photo:author)

zone of the original primo piano.12But in fact, Vasari saysnothing here about a mezzanino, and by combining thearchaeological evidence with his statement - "Edi soprafece [Michelozzo] un altro ordine di stanze comode per lafamiglia .. ." - it becomes clear that Vasari'sreference isto a Michelozzian restructuringof the rather claustropho-bic attic into more commodious service quarters. To besure, the exterior windows of the mezzanino do look a bitcrowded between the two main stories (Fig. 1).13 But thereis no indication of a change in the masonry, and the styleof the mezzanino voussoirs conforms precisely to the orig-inal building. Moreover, the earliest reliable depiction ofthe palace clearly shows external windows in the cortilearea between the first and second stories (Fig. 19), a pointsubstantiated by the new findings about the cortile, whichinclude a full trecento mezzanino running on all sides andat a level corresponding to the problematic external win-dows. The crowding of these stories on the exterior is mis-leading with respect to the perfectly ample and near-uni-form ceiling heights of the respectiveoriginal interiors.Alsoto be considered is the fact that the mezzanine windowsappeared on secondary walls of the palace, which origi-nally faced north.'4A Set of Balconies

Turningfrom the question of the roof-level and the num-ber of cortile stories to the distribution of the original cor-tile apertures, I find uniformity within their diversity. Thatis, within each wall the pattern of openings is near-identicalfrom story to story, with the exception of the attic (whichwould have been largely hidden under the eaves) and ofone opening on the primo piano. This congruency involvesnot only the lateral spacingand the dimensions of the open-ings, but also their levels. Where the openings are set low12Lensi, 58.13 Lensi-Orlandi, 70ff., although seemingly recognizing the originality ofthe mezzanine story, sees the external windows as Michelozzian enlarge-ments of the originals (representedin the duke of Athens fresco), mainlyon the grounds that they descend almost to the tops of the primo pianowindows, which are internally cut by the ceiling, indicating, in the au-thor's view, a Michelozzian lowering of the mezzanino floor. However,the evidence of the cortile openings as analyzed below (and seen in Figs.3, 9) shows that the mezzanino floor level was unchangedby Michelozzo.Apart from a possible slight lowering of the window sills by Michelozzo,the crowding of the windows and floor levels may have had to do with

planning changes made during the original construction of the building.Possibly when the externalwalls were built, a restrictedheight was plannedfor the mezzanino, but subsequently when the cortile walls were erected(which would have been the order of construction), it was decided to givethe story full height. Lensi'ssuggestion that the mezzanino windows wereidentical to the corresponding blind window fronting the tower does notserve his argument, for the sill of the latter runsat the height of the extantmezzanino windows; moreover, all three tower windows are smaller thanthe flanking fenestration.14Trachtenberg, 1988, 26ff.


12/46


? - : - : - : - : : : : - : - : - ; : : : - - : - - : :

16 PalazzoVecchio,attic, southtowerwall, showingcorbels(cf. Fig.36) andtracesof roof-cornice eneath ntonaco(photo:author)

................

17 Detailof Fig.16 (photo:author)49

...........

18 PalazzoVecchio,attic, tracesof roof-cornice eneathintonacoon east outer wall (photo:author)

on one story of a wall, they are set low on the others, andso forth.I"This similarity between the floors simplifies thetask of determining the meaning of the displacements andasymmetries in two ways. First, the solution for one floor

is probably the same for all threeprincipal stories, meaningthat evidence from all three floors can be combined intoan ideal solution for all three. Secondly, the consistency ofthe pattern points strongly to basic structuralor functionalfeatures as the cause of the irregularities.On each story (leaving the attic aside), Gothic aperturesare found at two levels, with a differential of ca. 1.2m be-tween their sills. The two levels do not intermix but areseparatedinto two tracts. The higher-level openings appearon the north wing and on the north ends of the east andwest wings - forming a south-facing U. The lower-placedopenings run along the entire south wing and on the south-ern ends of the east and west wings, forming a north-open-ing U. This disparity in levels is explained by relating theelevations of the cortile facades to the cross-section of thecortile wings (Figs. 9, 10). The higher-level openings cor-respond to the exterior windows of the palazzo. But thelower-level cortile openings come down to the floor levels,which are established by the exterior windows and theirembrasures.The functions of the two types of cortile open-ings areself-evident. The higher-placed openings are indeedwindows, but the lower-level aperturescan only be door-ways, and in fact they have the typically narrow propor-tions of doorways in contrast to the broader proportionsof the window openings, in addition to being ca. 2.2m inheight against the windows' two meters.Doorways set above ground-level and opening to a voidcan have but one explanation: that originally they gaveonto balconies. This logical inference is supported by pos-itive evidence, namely those rows of 30 x 60cm slots whichrun just below the doorways, and thus are perfectly placedto have been the put-log holes for the wooden beams thatwould have supported the balconies.16The support slots,although fragmentarily preserved, are found on all foursides of the cortile and at all accessible levels, with no in-dications that any of them were broken into preexistingmasonry. Presumably they are present as well at the bot-tom of the cortile walls, forever hidden beneath the Ren-aissance spandreldecoration. Given the story-to-story uni-formity of the cortile noted earlier, one can only imaginethat the balconies ran continuously around all sides and atall levels (except the attic), as is indicated by a third com-posite elevation intended to give an approximation of theirappearance (Fig. 11).17An attic balcony is excluded fromthis reconstruction owing to the height limitation imposedby the roof line. Because of this limitation, the attic door-way begun on the south wall would have been too smallto have served for more than ventilation; probably it neverwas completed but instead was partly filled in and con-verted into one of the small hypothetical attic windows, asin my reconstruction. A higheratticmay have been plannedoriginally, which would have allowed not only a full-height

15 Of the twenty-eight openings, only three are reconstructed, and noneof the latter are on the east or west sides where both windows and doorsare preserved. In the critical south wall, only one of nine openings hasbeen reconstructed. Hence it would be difficult to object that my argu-mentation is circular, that features have been willfully reconstructed tofit a desired pattern.

16The slots, besides being hollow, are too short to be viable stone con-soles; sixty cm in height, the latter could have supported a balcony prob-ably of not much more than the same in depth.17 In this drawing the balconies are continued through the corners to givethe impression of their continuity, although technically, of course, thebalusters turn near the corners.


13/46


ItsAFT

::NX,Or?~if?~f~i:~i:~~:Ei~'*:'?;,r~c,~~i:l-41i

R k - A l

.... YYgl?t-Wca7-,A:?..'75I.?::

19 View of PalazzoVecchio n Expulsion f theDukeofAthens,1343,frescoformerly n CarceridelleStinche,nowin PalazzoVecchio photo:author)

doorway but also balconies (possibly explaining the put-log hole preserved at this level on the west wall). But thecomfort of servants'quarterswas the least of priorities, andwould readily have been sacrificedto solve unknown prob-lems of cost or design that might have arisen duringconstruction.Access to the three levels of balconies - ballatoi, anditi,or palchetti - was initially only from the southern U ofportals. Eventually (possibly still in the trecento)additionalportals were opened in the northeast corner (Fig. 9). Onesuch corner doorway was added in the primo and secondopiani, and two in the mezzanino. On the secondo piano anadditional doorway was inserted near the center of the

north wall. Probably these alterations were made partly inconjunction with a subdivision of the east wing of the mez-zanino (with the extra doorway providing access to thenewly partitioned space) and similarly in the north wingof the secondo piano. On the latter level, the new cornerdoorway may also have been built to serve theechauguette,which, it now seems, replaced an L-shaped section of thesecondo piano balcony. This function would suggest a ten-tative dating for the supplementarydoorways to the periodfollowing the Ciompi revolt (1378-82), in which the palacewas stormed by a mob flooding through the cortile. Betteraccess to the &chauguette,and to the balconies in general,would have strengthenedthe palace defenses against futureinsurrections. The doorways may also be dated to the latetrecento because of their other hypothetical function, togive access to a repartitioned interior. Its new chamberswould have been needed by the bureaucracy which wasgrowing in the period.Several aspects of the first Palazzo Vecchio cortile remainproblematic. Although the balconies were undoubtedlybuilt of wood (the put-log holes were for wooden beams,not stone corbels), the form and spacing of balusters andother details are not possible to reconstruct securely, norcan the balcony width be ascertained (although I suggest1-1.5m, or at least the width of the corner doorways, withthe reconstruction set at two braccia or ca. 1.2m). My res-toration is based on the contemporary balconies preservedat the Castello at Poppi (near Arezzo) and on Rohault deFleury'sreconstruction of the Bargello (see below and Figs.25, 28, 29). Unlike Poppi, however (and like the Bargello),the Palazzo Vecchio included no struts at the base of thebalconies; there was no room for them in the spandrels ofthe portico, nor did the comparatively narrow balconiesneed them structurally.18 Probably the overhanging eaveswere sufficient to shelter thebalconies from rain, as in com-parable examples. The original portico arcades, rebuilt byMichelozzo and encased in cinquecento stucco, were prob-ably not pointed, as is commonly believed.19None of thearches in comparable Florentinecivic structures is pointed- not at the Bargello, Orsanmichele, the Loggiadei Lanzi,or, for that matter, the Palazzo Vecchio armory (and eventhe arches of the cortile windows and doors have an un-pointed segmental intrados). Unless the original piers weremuch shorterthanMichelozzo's, pointed archeswould haverisen too high, cutting into the primo piano.20Comparingthe same examples, the usual reconstruction of octagonalpiers at the first Palazzo Vecchio cortile is probably correct.The Balconied Courtyard in Historical ContextClearly the original Palazzo Vecchio cortile, irregularinits window patterns and dominated by tiers of balconies,

18Without struts, posts connecting the balconies (as at Poppi) would havehad no structuralfunction; moreover, the varied and often asymmetricalspacing of the support beams from wall to wall - with posts followingthis spacing - would have been visually awkward. Thus posts are omit-ted from the reconstruction given here.19E.g., Paul, 1963, 220. I have reconstructed the original arcades as iden-

tical to Michelozzo's, for lack of information to the contrary and on thebasis of their proportional similarity to the Camera dell'Arme piers andvaults.20 It is questionablewhether in fact Michelozzo rebuilt the arches, as schol-ars have assumed. The documentation is ambiguous, and Vasari onlymentions replacement of piers.


14/46


differedfrom Michelozzo's not only in style but in typology(Figs. 20, 21). Its walls were not formal and representa-tional "facades"but three-dimensionalutilitarianstructureswith balconies providing for circulation and access to theexterior for the priors, who were confined to the palaceduring their two-month tenure. Especially as modified bythe duke of Athens, who inserted the powerful echau-guette, the balcony system also served as a potential in-strument of defense for the palace. It will be my contentionthat nonformal criteria played a critical role in the trans-formation of the cortile from one mode to the other, andI grant that a visual comparison of the strictly utilitarianand the unabashedly monumental will almost inevitablyand unfairly work to the detriment of the former. None-theless, it is useful here to point out the probable formalreasons for the cortile remodeling. Visually, the originalcortile undoubtedly was best seen from the balconies. Fromground level, in the perception of the general public, itwould have presented, certainly by mid-quattrocento stan-dards and possibly even to the trecento eye, a rather nar-row and gloomy, though picturesque perspective.21 By re-moving the balconies, Michelozzo significantly widenedand brightened the space; and by redesigning the facades- seemingly combining the primo piano and mezzaninointo a single story and hiding the attic behind the entabla-ture - he ingeniously transformed the five cluttered, util-itarian stories into the sparkling appearance of three mon-umental ones (although to the still more elevated taste ofthe cinquecento even Michelozzo's remodeled cortile wouldseem "oscuro e disastroso").22The early courtyard of the Palazzo Vecchio was typo-logically complex. Its four sides were uniform in their com-ponents and stratification, including the arcaded porticoes

that ran all around. But the courtyard was narrow andirregular in form, its window patterns were varied andasymmetrical, and it was filled with tiers of balconies. Theselatter aspects tended to dominate the courtyard visually,and to the degree that they did - most strongly above theportico level - they severed it from the monumental, for-mal tradition of the building type. This tradition had a longand complicated history.23 It originated in the peristylecourts and precinctwalls of ancient villas and public build-ings. Reappearingin the Middle Ages in monastic cloisters,the type returnedto the public sphere in thirteenth-centuryLombardy24 nd thereafter in Tuscany, most notably at theBargello, with its vast cubiform courtyard (Fig. 22), and atthe Palazzo Pubblico in Siena, whose cortile, though nar-row, was highly formal, indeed more intricately articulatedthan the main facade of the palace (Fig. 23). To the extentthat the Palazzo Vecchio cortile was formal, it was justi-fiably termeda claustrumin 1304, as was the contemporaryBargello space.25 Finally, in the Palazzo Medici, the cortilereverted to "antique"usage in a compelling form that notonly was the basis of subsequent Renaissance palaces butwas retrofitted to the Palazzo Vecchio.26 In effect, Miche-lozzo's rebuilding there was not merely a stylistic modern-ization, but an attempt to transform one building type intoanother, or at least somehow to reconcile the two, makingthe most of the inherently monumental aspects of the orig-inal design. But then what was thevisually dominant build-ing type, or building tradition of the cortile of 1299?Although its full typological backgroundremains incom-pletely resolved, the first Palazzo Vecchio courtyard, withits narrow, cramped proportions and irregular fenestra-tion, belonged essentially - though not completely - tothe vernacular,utilitarianarchitectureof theMiddle Ages.27

21In the cinquecento remodeling of the cortile, most of the windows onthe south wing were walled up, as well as all of those which probablyexisted on the east wing. Thus in its original state, the porticoes wouldhave been brighter, mitigating the gloom.22G.B. Cini, 1566, in "Descrizione dell'Apparato fatto in Firenze per lenozze dell'illustrissimo ed eccellentissimo Don Francescode'Medici"(Va-sari, viII, 569). Michelozzo's remodelingalso included painted decoration:a chiaroscuro acanthus frieze in the portico spandrels and, extended overthe entire walls, a field of golden lilies in blue quatrefoils (G. and C.Thiem, ToskanischeFassaden-Dekoration, Munich, 1964, 125f.). The for-mer was covered over in the cinquecento, but a remnant is visible in thenortheast corner (ibid., fig. 179); the latter was all but destroyed by Na-poleon's regime in 1809; fragments (now visible) were recovered in therecent work on the cortile, and the entire scheme is illustrated in A. Grand-jean de Montigny and A. Famin, Architecture toscane, Paris, 1812, pl.xxxII.23See the issue of Gesta of 1973 dedicated to the cloister, especially thearticles by A. Frazer,W. Horn, K. Weil-GarrisPosner, and W. Lotz.24The Lombard series includes Novara (1206), Verona (1218/73), Cre-mona (1246), Piacenza (1281, only partly completed), and others (Paul,1969, 21ff.).25 R. Davidsohn, Forschungen zur Geschichte von Florenz, Berlin, 1908,Iv, 499. By 1300 the word claustrum appears to have been deconsecrated,as it were, and could apply to civic as well as religious architecture (Lotz[as in n. 23], 114, cites the Bargello reference;cf. Posner's comments onthe later evolution of the term [as in n. 23], 130f.)

26 On the sources and meaning of the Palazzo Medici, see above all thepenetratinganalyses of Hyman, 1977, 187ff., and T6nnesmann, 33ff. Onemight note that the balcony occasionally reemerges in the Renaissancecortile, as in Francesco di Giorgio (Gubbio) and Palladio (the PalazzoValmarana).27This reading differs from Paul's analysis of its typology (1969, 43ff).Paul sees the Palazzo Vecchio cortile as a conflation of two traditions:the development of the courtyard in the building program of 13th-centurycommunal palaces in north Italy (see n. 24) and the highly formal, geo-metricized courts of the castles of FrederickII. Paul is probably correctin identifying north Italy as a source for the spatial program of the PalazzoVecchio as a whole - a front block of superimposed large halls with acortile to the rear - and he correctly emphasizes the unusually self-con-tained character of the plan of the Palazzo Vecchio cortile. But the newarchaeological findings suggest that the basic typology of our cortile perse has little to do with the monumental tradition exemplified by FrederickII's castles, nor has it much in common with most of the north Italianexamples. Perhaps its closest source among Paul's suggested forerunnerswould be the extremely narrow, shaft-like courtyard of the Palazzo di S.Giorgio in Genoa of the mid-13th century. But as Hyman points out (1977,21f.), Florentinehouses of the period, even small ones, typically had someform of courtyard to the rear. Such houses, along with other vernacularconstruction, probably would also have figured strongly in the genesis ofthe Palazzo Vecchio cortile program (just as the ubiquitous sporti of Flor-entine houses partly inspired the ballatoio of the palace). See also n. 98on the typology and program of the palazzo.


15/46


JF

00-

20 Palazzo Vec-chio, recon-structed view oforiginal cortile, tosouth, with per-spective identicalto Fig. 21 (draw-ing by A. Atwell)


16/46


S ... . .

.."

...............

ii.iX

..? . ....

21 PalazzoVecchio,view of cor-tile, to south(photo:author)


17/46

580 THE ART BULLETINDECEMBER 989 VOLUME LXXI NUMBER4

R.W

WMINOW,N1,MrV ..Saylj?M........... ...........T ?.-,' WOFLitASSUM V, ,Rn WN211-5R1A.AW ONaw1M 4?2

Vy Not To22 Florence,Bargello ortile(photo:author)The clearest and most visible tie to this genre, however,was the system of balconies. The tradition of this buildingform is in need of some explication. In medieval Tuscany,balconies were rare in the courtyards of communal build-ings, but common in those of domestic and fortified struc-tures, and they were ubiquitous on all manner of secularfacades. As seen in a conjectural Florentine city block ofthe period (Fig. 24), balconies offered relief in a warm,sunny climate to the claustrophobic density of small, over-built cities and their narrow, crowded buildings. They alsocontributed to the means of circulation in highly com-partmentalized layouts.28 Because most of these balconieshave disappeared, it is not generally realizedjust how com-mon they were, although their traces abound in rows ofcorbels and put-log holes for the balcony supports (tracesare seen mainly on exterior facades, which are far betterpreserved than early courtyards).The Bargello is perhaps the most relevant of related bal-conied structures, for it was functionally a forerunner ofthe Palazzo Vecchio, its initial block having been con-structed in the 1250s to serve the highest government of-ficial (then the Capitano del Popolo). Its exterior is markedwith lines of put-log holes and corbels for the supports ofthe balconies, as seen in Rohault de Fleury'splausible re-construction (Fig.25, accepted and republished by Paatz).29The two-tiered wooden structure ran around the originaldugento block of the monument; few doorways opened toit and, as at the Palazzo Vecchio cortile, it continued pastmany windows. Such external balconies were included onmany of the private towers and palaces of the time, suchas the two house-towers of the Foresi family on the Piazza

i?- a. I??-.~??.?~$ k~L.

*dUc1?~8:::"..r~i --" z":5ir :r:i: *a.

v*1 )~j~F~a~-I ~-

23 Siena,PalazzoPubblico,cortile(photo:author)Davanzati (Fig. 26), with documented cases going back tothe twelfth century.30 n communal architecturean impor-tant site of the form outside Florencewas Volterra, wherethe traces of extensive balconies (with doorways and win-dows) are found on the Palazzo Pretorio, comprising agroup of private fabrics dating from the twelfth or earlythirteenthcentury that the city converted to public use (Fig.27).31 Such instances suggest a pattern of migration of theexternal balcony, moving from twelfth-century domesticconstruction into public works in the dugento, eitherthrough takeover as at Volterraor in new communal con-struction like the Bargello, where the utilitarianfeaturewashung on an otherwise monumental facade.With regard to cortile balconies, two contemporaryworks - the Castello at Poppi and the Palazzo Davanzati- provide relevant points of comparison. The former hasbeen connected with the Palazzo Vecchio ever since Vasariattributed it to Lapo Tedesco, the supposed father of Ar-nolfo di Cambio, to whom he gave the Palazzo Vecchioitself.32Vasari's nformation is always questionable, but the

28On balconies inFlorentinedomestic architecture,see Schiaparelli,51ff.:Hyman, 1977, 23ff. One might compare the timber-structured hourdswidely used in fortifications (Viollet-le-Duc, vi, 122ff.).29 W. Paatz, "ZurBaugeschichtedes Palazzo del Podesta in Florenz,"Mit-teilungen des Kunsthistorisches Institutes in Florenz, 1919/32, 308ff. Inone respect, however, the reconstruction is inaccurate. With the reorder-ing of the interior levels in the rebuilding after the fire of 1322, which

raised the external walls to their extant height (as in the illustration), thebalconiesprobably were removed, at least theiruppertier,which no longerwas accessible. See n. 98.30 See Fanelli, ii, 30ff.31Paul, 1963, 278.32Rodolico-Marchini, 165f.


18/46


-r, ~BI\ P~Q. 1

'"3 Bcr

I I?

:"1. II ) 1 IIIIILnii I I 11~111~?S.r~iJ;

24 Medievalblock of Florentine ouses(drawingby J. Wood-Brown)

two buildings were closely linked in date, in political back-ground, and in architectural form, even if not in author-ship. Poppi was the seat of the powerful Conti Guidi, longconnected with Florence. Among the well-known membersof the family, Guido Novello was Florentine podesta afterthe Battle of Montaperti, and Guido da Batifolle was vicarof Florencein 1316, when he promoted the enlargement ofthe Bargello. In 1343, Conte Simone held the duke of Ath-ens captive at Poppi, where he irrevocably resigned hisFlorentinedictatorship. The Castello consists of two wingsjoined by a courtyard and a tower. Its dating is proble-matic, but the earlierwing precedes the Palazzo Vecchio infenestration type, and may date from after ca. 1290, whenthe Castello is recorded to have been "disfatto"by the Flor-entines. The later wing, whose windows follow the PalazzoVecchio type, appears to be early trecento.Over the picturesque courtyard of Poppi rise two tiersof balconies (Fig. 28). Part of the early trecento wing, theyare over three meters in depth and run along the entirelength of the court. Doorways onto the balconies supple-ment doorways between the rooms, and the balconies alsoform part of the complicated stairway system (itself largelyRenaissance in date). The Poppi balconies seem to pre-serve, despite restoration, their original wooden system ofstruts and richly carved and painted beams (Fig. 29). Al-though it is the Poppi cortile that suggests something of theimpression made by the original Palazzo Vecchio court-yard, the exterior of the castle conserves in one area a con-figuration of openings identical in type to the Florentine

bi-level system. The north wall includes, on the upper sto-ries, both windows and doorways (Fig. 30). As in Florence,it is hard to imagine any purpose of the doorways otherthan for balconies, and indeed, despite restoration, tracesof the slots for balcony supports are found below and be-tween the doorways.The closest analogy to the Palazzo Vecchio cortile as awhole, however, is provided by the mid-trecento PalazzoDavanzati (Figs. 31-33).33 The asymmetrical, narrow planof its cortile, the octagonal portico piers, and, as will beseen, the stair runningup from beneath the portico, are allin the same tradition as the communal structure. In fact,just as many trecento private palaces reflected the rusti-cation of the Palazzo Vecchio, so its cortile may have di-rectly influenced that of the Davanzati, and not merely par-alleled it, which would account for their exceptionalsimilarity.34The connection is most striking in the balconysystem of the latter, which runs at four levels to providecirculation around three sides of the court (the fourth sidebeing an outside wall). In contrast to Poppi, whose bal-conies are sufficiently wide to provide sunny loggias as wellas circulation, in the Davanzati the space is narrow andmeant primarily for passage, although, as at the PalazzoVecchio, access to open air was also most probably in-tended. Several of the Davanzati rooms can be reachedonlyfrom the balconies.35The Bargello, Poppi, and the Palazzo Davanzati providea firm context for interpreting the Palazzo Vecchio court-yard, as well as collectively suggesting how it might havelooked. Nevertheless, one stubborn problem remains, theextreme rarity of balconies in the courtyards of communalpalaces. Balconies of any sort scarcely appear here, eitherin Tuscany, or in the numerous thirteenth-century Lom-bard town halls in which the communal courtyard was pi-oneered in Italy.36Theirfull-blown development in the cor-tile of the Palazzo Vecchio cannot be understood in termsof an evolution. Rather, the explanation lies, I believe, inthe tendencies of Florentinearchitectureof the time as re-alized in the Palazzo Vecchio project as a whole. The majorFlorentinetrecentobuildings tended to be one-of-a-kind de-signs, each freshly conceived to realize the specific needsof a building program. S. Croce, the new Duomo facade,the Campanile, Orsanmichele, and the Bigallo have littlein common formally or iconographically. They were notthe products of an evolutionary process (like the Frenchcathedrals), but of highly imaginative, self-conscious, andindividualistic acts of design that drew freely on eclecticsources. The Palazzo Vecchio workshop was a model ofthis process. The exterior of the monument was a unique

33 It may have been built as early as 1330. Cf. L.C. Rosenberg, The Da-vanzati Palace, New York, 1922; and Hyman, 1977, 41.34Hyman suggests that ambitious trecento palaces sometimes imitatedcommunal architecture, creating "in miniature the appearance of court-yards of public buildings such as the Palazzo del Podestla" 1977, 37f.).35These rooms can also be reached through the labyrinth of the latrinechambers. It is to be observed that the problem of access to corner roomsled to an identical device in three of these related buildings: two contig-uous doorways separated only by a narrow corner pier. This arrangement

is seen at two levels of the Davanzati court and at Poppi in a stair landingfor doorways giving onto the chapel and the main hall. The configurationis found at three levels of the Palazzo Vecchio in the southwest corner ofthe cortile (and also in the supplementary mezzanine doorways in thenortheast corner).36Balconies do not appear in any of Paul's Lombard examples, and inTuscan communal architecture they are exceedingly rare, the only ex-ample that has come to my attention being the small structure in thePalazzo del Comune in Pistoia.


19/46


:? iF~r~f~~IAo'll-1-9

w.I

"ri,

.... .... .. . ??-

25 Bargellowithbalconies reconstructiony RohaultdeFleury)

- - - -2 :2 " - " . " ::... :.,26 Florence,house-towers f the Foresi amily (photo:author)

combination of forms, many unique themselves, especiallyin the superstructure, with its unprecedented ballatoio (acombination of Florentine domestic sporti and ordinarybattlements), its watchbox (an aggrandizedguette), and itsextraordinary belfry (a secularized baldachin that alludesto the imperial watchtower at S. Miniato al Tedesco). Itsrustication, which, looking back through its Renaissancederivatives, we tend to take for granted, was unprece-dented in the typology of communal palaces, no less sothan the cortile balconies.3 The builders had good reasonsfor creating each of these aspects of the palazzo - andespecially good ones, as will be seen, for the balcony pro-gram. Moreover, they seem to have been particularly opento the use of the balcony, for the building abounds withbalconies and balcony-related forms. On the interior, asalready noted, the armory originally employed a balconyfor purposes of defense, while the exterior is dominated bythe ballatoio, realized, to be sure, in a monumental formlanguage.This having been said, a certain evolution toward thebalcony system of the Palazzo Vecchio nevertheless can be

N . R iqaSVN',, MPWIIII-,?Mp"WI-- IE

27 Volterra,PalazzoPretorio photo:author)discerned - not a direct line but a characteristic trecentoprocess of eclectic transfer. From this analysis, one mayalso gain a further perspective on the development of thecortile as a building type in the period. The point of de-parture is not an earlier cortile but the original, closed Bar-

37On this iconography, see Paul, 1969, passim, and Trachtenberg,1971,167ff. Prior to the Palazzo Vecchio, rusticated towers occasionally ac-company communal palaces, as at the Bargelloand the Broletto in Como,but not the main palace block. A rare, if not unique partial exception isthe ground-story arcades of the Palazzo del Comune in Genoa.


20/46


Py'

28 Castellodi Poppi, courtyardbalconies photo:author)

29 CastellodiPoppi, supportstructure f bal-conies(photo:author)

lZ vwi-".4 Pm;,,PfrMXik N30 Castellodi Poppi,exteriorwall (photo:author)gello block of the 1250s. There, as noted earlier,balconieswere incorporated in its monumental fa;cades ollowing thepractice in vernacular domestic architecture. At the moreadvanced and highly monumental exterior of the PalazzoVecchio, however, the vernacular form was banished, and,as it were, relegated to the courtyard, the area where bal-conies had scarcely appeared in communal architecture.Here the utilitarian structures, like almost every other ele-ment of the ambitious building, were carried to perhaps

their highest level of development. But they were out-moded as a civic form, both internally and externally, prac-tically as soon as the cortile was completed. In 1304, Siena,while retaining narrow proportions, gave its civic cortilemonumental facades. At the Bargellocortile, developed be-tween the 1280s and the 1340s, the inverse obtained: thewalls were not as formally strict as in Siena, but the cub-iform space had spatial grandeur,and it was endowed witha splendidstaircase and loggia. To fuse the formality, scale,and magnificence shared by these two courtyards, and toinvest the type with a new form language and symbolism,would be the historical task of Michelozzo a century laterat the Palazzo Medici. To reconcile the result with the oldnarrow format of the Palazzo Vecchio would be one of hismost demanding challenges as a builder.Geometry and Proportions in PlanningThe Palazzo Vecchio was a highly eclectic building, inwhich layers of monumentality and attentive practicalitycoexisted. Its balcony-hung cortile walls belonged essen-tially to informal vernacular currents, but in the largerscheme of the palace monumental traditions came pow-erfully into play. The latter are particularly evident in theproportions and pervasive geometric regularity. In the westfacade, for example, the main block (including the balla-toio height, but not its width) formed a square, while theratio of the heights of the rusticated stories and the bal-latoio was 2:1, a ratio repeated in the components of thetower.38 But perhaps the greatest ingenuity in mathemati-cal, normative design was directed to the groundplan:through it, the cortile, visibly dominated by informal ver-naculartraditions, cameto participate ntensely, if in a senseinvisibly, in monumental design.

Longbefore Michelozzo transformed the cortile visually,indeed, at the cortile'sfounding, a skillful attempt had beenmade to inject order into its predominantly utilitarianscheme. So comprehensive was the abstract configurationthat the cortile, despite its appearance, might almost rep-resent not ameliorated informality but a fusion of utilitar-ian and monumental planning traditions.39Because of the skewing of the south end of the palace -which the trecento chronicler Giovanni Villani, criticizedas a "greatdefect"40- the ingenuity of the groundplan hasbeen overlooked, with modern observers uncritically con-curringwith Villani's slighting of the planners'abilities. Yetonce this preconception is shed, the impressive and in cer-tain ways surprisingscheme of proportions and alignmentsreveals itself. The plan appears to have resulted from arigorous design process extending from the basic outliningof the building through detailing that probably includedthe balcony system of the cortile.The design grew from the contingencies of the buildingsite. At the outset it was predetermined along its south andwest lines by existing streets, respectively the Via della

38L. GoriMontanelli, Latradizionearchitettonicatoscana, Florence, 1963,61; elevation reproduced in Fanelli, II, fig. 61.39This fusion, however, is not the one suggested by Paul, of the Lombardcommunal courtyard and the geometry of FrederickII (see n. 27).40G. Villani, Cronica, Bk. ix, chap. xxvI.


21/46


.. ........z.a.,

L;w

r?-.?ls,MI:MR 5.f'.. . . . . . . . ......... 'LYY:k. ?ArMIR?g5F,5.1:0 M.i

to 0,'51UP

Ilk- AWV "IR

31 PalazzoDavanzati,cortile(photo:author)Ninna (to the south) and the Via di S. Piero Scheraggio (tothe west), whose obtuse angle of intersection was respon-sible for the skewing of the palace plan (Fig. 34). In otherdirections, there was more flexibility, toward the preexist-ing Platea Ubertorum to the north, and to the east wherenecessary real estate could be condemned.41Furthercom-

- c IV: : c :

SECONDLOOKL.e iC fr

32 PalazzoDavanzati,plan (fromRosenberg)

-m

..SEC.TION .,SECTION-?T I ? I* II' l/. l s-11.

33 PalazzoDavanzati,cross-sectionfromRosenberg)

41Villani puts the matter inversely: "... perche il detto palazzo non siponesse in sul terreno de' detti Uberti, coloro che l'ebbono a far fare ilposono smusso, che fu grande diffalta lasciare per6 di non farlo quadro,e piuidiscostato dalla chiesa di San Piero Scheraggio." In other words,according to Villani the Uberti area provided an absolute northern limit,forcing the builders to push the site as far to the south as possible, i.e.,to the skewed line of the Via della Ninna. The proportional exactitude ofthe palace plan, however, suggests that the precise northern edge of itssite was not predetermined, but established within a flexible, if narrowzone that may or may not have pushed slightly into the Uberti area. Thatit in actuality did is strongly suggested by the fact that the founding ofthe palace on 24 Feb. 1299 occurred prior to the first recorded land pur-chase on 17 March (C. Frey, Die Loggia dei Lanzi, Berlin, 1885, 185f.);the only terrain available for construction before the latter date wouldhave been in the Uberti area, which was communal property. To havesquared the south end of the palace would not have gained as much asVillani imagined: the south front was merely the rear of the palace, andthe resulting, useless piazzetta in front of it would have been of an awk-ward, cramped triangularity. Moreover, the regime was acutely cost-conscious, and would have strongly resisted the waste of the wedge ofcostly terrain. See also n. 42.


22/46


3b

3b b

a a

34 PalazzoVecchio,analyticalgroundplandrawingbyA. Atwell)

plicating the site was the tower of the Foraboschi familyintended for incorporation into the palace.42 n laying outthe foundations of their ambitious new edifice within thesesite limitations, mutable only to the north and east, thebuilders appear to have adopted two strategies: first, todisregard the triangular area along the Via della Ninna indesign operations, and, second, to use the west wall as aplanning base. The latter policy followed logically from theintended distribution of the spatial program of the building- whose main facade originally fronted the Platea Uber-

torum - along a north-south axis. With these factors inmind, the planners took the distance ("a"in Fig. 34) fromthe Via della Ninna to the northwest corner of the Fora-boschi tower and then doubled'it, giving the length of thewest facade, or in effect the length of the main axis of thebuilding (excluding the triangular wedge). The next prob-lem was to determine the respective dimensions of the cor-tile and the multi-aisled hall that were the programmaticcontent of the plan. To do this the builders appear to havesubdivided the length of the west wall into five equal units("b"). Remarkably, the subdivided dimension was not thefull external length of the palace, but rather was taken be-tween the centers of the thickness of the end walls (a pro-cedure that is supposed to have occurred in Florence firstonly in late Brunelleschi).43 From the subdivided base linethe plan was extended three units eastward, to form a gridof three by five units. This grid rigidly determined the ar-ticulation of the plan.44Two of the five units along the westwere allotted to the Camera dell'Arme and three to the cor-tile, with the dividing wall centered on the appropriatenorth-south grid line. Thus the cortile, disregardingthe la-mented triangular wedge, was made to form a perfectsquare. Within the Camera dell'Arme, the grid producedsix bays and determined their dimensions. Because the gridran to wall centers, the free dimensions of the bays wereall slightly less than the full modular unit "b." The twofreestanding columns were placed almost exactly at gridintersections, making the two central bays slightly off-square; the remaining bays were square, but their free di-mensions were less than that of the grid by about one-halfa wall thickness.45 Two other features of the scheme were

42 On the site-area, see Frey, as in n. 41, 5ff., pl. I; F.J.Carmody, "Flor-ence: Project for a Map, 1250-1298," Speculum, xix, 1944, 39ff.; P. Spil-ner, "Ut Civitas Amplietur: Studies in Florentine Urban Development,1282-1400," Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1987, 393. The precise ex-tent of the Platea Ubertorum is not known; nor, despite Frey's analysisof real estate purchases for the palazzo, is the area to the east fully clarified(although Frey's plan does indicate that the east wall of the palace wasnot sited [as Spilnerclaims] on the Via di Bellanda, which lay much fartherto the east, but on a new street created in conjunction with the palace).Moreover, Frey does not locate the Foraboschi tower in the area of theirdocumented property. However, it would seem that it stood at or nearthe corner of the Via di San Piero Scheraggio and the Via del Guardingo,which cut east-west across the site and was eliminated by the new palace.43L.H. Heydenreich, "Spitwerke Brunelleschis," Jahrbuch der preus-sischen Kunstsammlungen, LII,1931, 13. That trecento planners self-con-sciously used both free and interaxial measurements is revealed by thecathedral documentation. When the new duomo is laid out on 19 June1357 the distance between the nave piers is measured interaxially ("dameza cholonna a meza cholonna"), but the length and width of the churchare measured "netta" rom wall to wall (C. Guasti, Santa Maria del Fiore,Florence, 1887, 94f.; see also the deliberations on 13 Aug. 1366 and 9Aug. 1367, 174ff., 188f.). The planning procedure at the Palazzo Vecchioappears to have combined geometrical and arithmetical operations withan attention to the values placed on certain integers - such as seven andtwelve - and their multiples. One probable reason why the plannersaccepted the dimension 2a as the base line of the plan was that it cameto 42.6m or 73 braccia, that is, close to 72 ( = 6 x 12) braccia. It is probablysignificant that this figure earlier had dimensioned the Baptistery (itsheight), and contemporaneously gave the width (and probable height) ofArnolfo's cathedral facade and eventually the key dimensions of the wholenew building. Indeed, just as the cupola was ultimately proiected with a

72 braccia diameter and rising (internally) to 144 (2 x 72) braccia, so thePalazzo Vecchio was granteda facade seventy-two braccia wide and high,topped by a tower of approximately the same height - producing asuggestive parity between primary civic and ecclesiastical monuments.Concerning the evolution of the palace plan, however, dividing 72 or 73by five did not result in a desirable whole number. But if half the ca.three-braccia thickness of the end walls, or three braccia together, weresubtracted, 70 braccia remained, which divided by five gave 14 (or 2 x7) braccia, or the module "b" (8.18m). Using the center of the walls forthe layout was not only effective in this way, but it also allowed for theprecise integration of the intermediate east-west wall into the grid.44It also may have indirectly determined, through rotational geometry,the height of the north front, which originally was the main facade. Inmy reconstruction of its initial design, the facade rises to a height closeto the diagonal of a square whose sides are equal to the width of thefacade. A Florentineprecedentfor the comprehensiveness of the planninggrid of the palazzo is found in S. Miniato al Monte, a near-perfect exampleof the medieval system of "square schematism." In Fanelli'splan (1973,fig. 36) the outer grid lines run along wall centers, but this appears toresult from the inexactitude of the rendering (the outer bays of the gridbeing laterally stretched to meet the wall).45The interaxial distance of the central columns in the Camera dell'Armeis 7.95m, or 23cm less than the module "b." This slight inward displace-ment of the columns (less than twelve cm each, not visible in the plan)was probably not an error but an intentional means of slightly mitigatingthe disparity in spacing between the central columns and the columns andthe outer walls. The latter distances measure 7.38-7.49m from columncenter to wall face, or about 70-80cm less than the 8.18 grid module -the difference being accounted for by half the 1.60-1.80 meter thicknessof the outer walls (give or take a few centimeters).


23/46


significant. The tower stood with its northwest corner atthe center of the west front, a position that was eventuallyto be of critical importance in the final design of the palaceexterior.46And a pocket of space next to the tower wasavailable for a stairwell.Subsequently the builders turned to the problem of con-figuring the plan of the cortile arcades, for which the griddid not provide a viable basis of distribution (it would havemade the cortile center impossibly narrow). Here trecentodesign showed itself capable not only of rigid schematismbut of subtlety and compromise in resolving an entangle-ment of factors. The success of the planners is not imme-diately apparent, for at first glance the layout of the cortilearcades, in contrast to the precise disposition of the palacewalls, looks anything but ordered - the porticoes are ofvarying depths, and they are in disalignmentwith the outerwalls (Fig. 35a).47To understand the causes for these ir-regularities, the reconstruction of the design process mustbe continued step by step.The basic problem now faced by the planners was notso much the arcadesas such, but ratherthe conflict betweenthe need for breadth in the high central well of space in thecortile, lest it be excessively narrow and dark, and the spa-tial needs of the cortile wings, especially in the above-ground stories. This conflict resulted from the way the pal-ace plan had evolved, from the outside in, ratherthan fromthe inside outward, which would have allowed the buildersto start with an ideal cortile scheme with ample dimensionsfor both the center and the wings. The latter procedure, ofcourse, would have made the palace considerably larger inplan, and the designerswould have run up against site lim-itations and financial constraints. These might be consid-ered the ultimate causes of the planning problem of thecortile, in addition to the fact that the courtyard as a build-ing type had not yet acquired the status it would receivein the quattrocento.Florentines were well practiced in dealing with such dif-ficulties. The spatial conflict at the cortile appears to havebeen resolved in a manner characteristicof trecento plan-ning, by deference to a mathematical formula, in this caseevidently the one used in apportioning the somewhat anal-ogous space of the typical Florentine church, whose naveis generally about twice the width of the side aisles. Figure35b reveals, however, that in execution the distribution of

space deviated from the ideal 2:1 proportions (which in thenorth-south direction, with its wedge-shaped area on thesouth, used the dimension on the main axis of the building).Whereas the south and west wings were slightly widened(by 23-30cm), those to the north and east, in particulartheformer, were considerably narrowed (respectively by 1.58and .74m). This narrowing of the periphery would appearto have reflected the concern for the adequate dimensions

of the cortile center. Where space in the wings could besacrificed to the center, adjustments were made - mostextensively in the northwing (where, as we shall find, spacewas needed in the upper stories only for circulation) andalong the east (where the narrowed space was still amplefor the single room at each level). To the contrary, porticospace was tight to the west around the tower base and thuswas slightly widened, as it was also along the south, wheremaximum space was needed in the stories above, which,we shall discover, were subdivided into numerous cham-bers. The net result, however, of the deviations from "ideal"proportions was an expansion of the central area of thecortile, to the maximum permitted without overly com-promising the use of the wings. Slight on paper, but no-ticeable in reality, this added quantum of openness wouldhave been highly valued by Florentineplannerswho at thetime were deeply concerned with assuring sufficient lightand air in the urban environment. (This concern was re-flected in building codes specifying minimum street widthsand banning overhanging sporti.)48Returning to the evolution of the groundplan, we findthat the non-parallelismbetween the arcades and the outerwalls resultedfrom another set of problems. Having settledthe issue of the relative size of the different parts of thecortile, the builders now faced the problem of alignment.While they could do nothing about the external skewingof the palace walls - which amounted to twelve degreesfrom square - they found ways to modulate the potentialdistortion of internal space. One concern here - pace Vil-lani - was to soften the potentially severe deformation ofspace within the south portico (and the stories above it).To do this, the builders could, of course, simply have runthe south arcade parallel to the south wall. But this wouldhave increased the non-alignment of the south cortile ar-cade with respect to the other sides, making the cortile cen-ter as skewed as the whole building. It also would haveconstricted the space in the upper story ambients of thesouth wing. Conversely, squaring the south arcadewith theothers would have maximized the internal skewing of thesouth wing. In other words, the builders faced a conflictbetween straightening the south wing interior and achiev-ing rectilinearity at the south end of the cortile center. Thesolution of one problem would come at the expense of theother. Although the planners were unable to resolve thisdilemma completely, they appear to have found a remark-able alternative scheme that minimized the problem. It in-volved two operations. The south arcade was set inter-mediate between parallelism with the south wall andsquared alignment with the cortile center - that is, alongthe line bisecting the twelve-degree angle of distortion (Fig.35c). Then, more ingeniously, the adjacent, east and westarcadeswere slightly, but noticeably rotatedclockwise from

46Trachtenberg, 1988, 29ff.47This measured plan is the result of a survey kindly executed for me byPiero Micheli and Adrienne Atwell. My thanks also go to Ugo Muccinifor access to the cortile for this survey during restoration work. The di-mensions in the plan are between column centers and wall planes. In con-figuring the cortile, unlike the palace walls, the inner wall plane rather

than the center of the wall thickness was probably used for dimensions,for the walls were undoubtedly already standing (or well advanced) beforethe arcades were built, as was the common practice.48W. Braunfels, Mittelalterliche Stadtbaukunst in der Toskana, Berlin,1953, 101ff., 110ff.


24/46

0 0U

sm5.08~4.74 7.184.83 14.25 6.636.4

S IDEAL 2:1 SPATIAL

ri686o/o;!

N

SAS BUILTAS BUILTBULT

SSQUARED WITH COURT CENTER PARALLELISM WPARALLEL WITH SOUTH WALL

35a-d Palazzo Vecchio, analysis of cortile plan: (a) measured plan (b) ideal vs. executed proportions (c) angular adjustment of south arcadarcades (drawings by A. Atwell and P. Micheli)


25/46


- - -- - - -r -

TOWERBASE

- I I I IIi I I

S -I I I I I L

PIAZZA

---- VISIBLE TOWER AND CORBELSFORABOSCHI TOWER

36 PalazzoVecchio,planof tower at level of jointbetweenForaboschitructure ndtrecento abric(drawingby author): :::~-ib~L~S~S~~; : .: :::-:i:

.at;B~i-: : ::-. :-'-ig'::_::--:-:~::::~:::

37 PalazzoVecchio,corbelson eastwall of tower,as seeninattic (photo:au

Documents

Trachtenberg_Archaeology, Merriment, and Murder- The First Cortile of the Palazzo Vecchio and Its Transformations in the Late Florentine Republic